ILNews

Man who fled after hearing not entitled to discharge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) by a man charged in connection with a gun shop burglary in Morgan County was properly denied by the trial court, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday. Much of the delay in bringing him to trial within a year was attributable to the appellant, including his decision to flee after a hearing.

In Scott Speers v. State of Indiana, 55A01-1208-CR-391, Scott Speers was arrested by police on March 11, 2011, after blood found at the crime scene matched his DNA in the CODIS database. But his jury trial didn’t begin until July 17, 2012. In that time frame, Speers filed a motion to continue because his counsel was going to be out of town on the original trial date of Aug. 24, 2011, and then he later indicated he would plead guilty. Speers was also arrested in another county during this time, and then fled after a Dec. 22, 2011, hearing. He was arrested five days later.

The trial had to be continued so Speers could get a new attorney, as his prior attorney would be a witness in his escape case, and the case was moved to a different court. Nearly 480 days elapsed before Speers went to trial, but enough of the delay was attributable to Speers to support the denial of his Rule 4(C) motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The judges also held that the trial court didn’t erroneously admit results of the DNA testing in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when only DNA analyst Lori James testified. The lab tech who transferred the blood sample from the broken glass in the store to white cloths for testing by James did not testify. Citing Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703, 705 (Ind. 2009), the COA found that James’ testimony regarding the evidence sufficed for Sixth Amendment purposes because she had direct involvement in the testing and analysis of the DNA at issue.

They also rejected his claim that Pendergrass is no longer good law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012).

Finally, the appeals court held that the direct examination of the lead detective by the state did not present evidence that created an “evidentiary harpoon,” as Speers contended. He sought a mistrial on the basis the state was leaving the jury to speculate how he was developed as a suspect. The state tried to avoid informing the jury of the CODIS match, which would have indicated Speers had a criminal history.

The trial court correctly denied the motion for mistrial, the judges ruled, because the question by the state and the detective’s response did not inject inadmissible evidence into the trial, and it was simply used by the state as a transition from testimony regarding the initial suspect to the detective’s subsequent investigation of Speers.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Frankly, it is tragic that you are even considering going to an expensive, unaccredited "law school." It is extremely difficult to get a job with a degree from a real school. If you are going to make the investment of time, money, and tears into law school, it should not be to a place that won't actually enable you to practice law when you graduate.

  2. As a lawyer who grew up in Fort Wayne (but went to a real law school), it is not that hard to find a mentor in the legal community without your school's assistance. One does not need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go to an unaccredited legal diploma mill to get a mentor. Having a mentor means precisely nothing if you cannot get a job upon graduation, and considering that the legal job market is utterly terrible, these students from Indiana Tech are going to be adrift after graduation.

  3. 700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

  4. I am sorry to hear this.

  5. I tried a case in Judge Barker's court many years ago and I recall it vividly as a highlight of my career. I don't get in federal court very often but found myself back there again last Summer. We had both aged a bit but I must say she was just as I had remembered her. Authoritative, organized and yes, human ...with a good sense of humor. I also appreciated that even though we were dealing with difficult criminal cases, she treated my clients with dignity and understanding. My clients certainly respected her. Thanks for this nice article. Congratulations to Judge Barker for reaching another milestone in a remarkable career.

ADVERTISEMENT